US rattling the saber

[K. A. Pital]

That's a very weird theory though. Nukes would force nations to be more responsible and careful, because nuclear ownership obliges you to behave in certain ways to avoid getting killfucked by the rest of the nuclear club members. Does this also apply to Pakistan? They, the Pakistanis, still engage in empty provocations - with another, bigger, meaner, badder nuclear power right next door to them.

Some ration that they have resorted to terrorism after full-scale conflicts seemed to rapidly fizzle out due to fear of nuclear escalation.

I.e. weren't it for nukes, the Pakistanis would be more keen on resorting to open war, rather than mere terrorism.

[Eframepilot]

Oh my. If this is accurate, the reason the bombs went to Diego Garcia was so that they would not go to Israel: http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribun ... _03_18.asp

Obama blocks delivery of bunker-busters to Israel
WASHINGTON — The United States
has diverted a shipment of bunker-busters designated for Israel.

Officials said the U.S. military was ordered to divert a shipment of smart bunker-buster bombs from Israel to a military base in Diego Garcia. They said the shipment of 387 smart munitions had been slated to join pre-positioned U.S. military equipment in Israel Air Force bases.

"This was a political decision," an official said.

In 2008, the United States approved an Israeli request for bunker-busters capable of destroying underground facilities, including Iranian nuclear weapons sites. Officials said delivery of the weapons was held up by the administration of President Barack Obama.

Since taking office, Obama has refused to approve any major Israeli requests for U.S. weapons platforms or advanced systems. Officials said this included proposed Israeli procurement of AH-64D Apache attack helicopters, refueling systems, advanced munitions and data on a stealth variant of the F-15E.

[Guardsman Bass]

That's a very weird theory though. Nukes would force nations to be more responsible and careful, because nuclear ownership obliges you to behave in certain ways to avoid getting killfucked by the rest of the nuclear club members. Does this also apply to Pakistan? They, the Pakistanis, still engage in empty provocations - with another, bigger, meaner, badder nuclear power right next door to them.

Some ration that they have resorted to terrorism after full-scale conflicts seemed to rapidly fizzle out due to fear of nuclear escalation.

I.e. weren't it for nukes, the Pakistanis would be more keen on resorting to open war, rather than mere terrorism.

I don't entirely agree with that latter point. Without nukes, the Indian military dwarfs the Pakistani one, particularly since the technological differences between them (it used to be that the Indian military had more-but-technologically-inferior forces) are disappearing.

[Shroom Man 777]

Nice, the Silent Eagle gets a reference.

I like how Obama is trying to play good cop. Hopefully the Iranians will be thankful for this (they won't).

[Ma Deuce]

Some ration that they have resorted to terrorism after full-scale conflicts seemed to rapidly fizzle out due to fear of nuclear escalation.

I.e. weren't it for nukes, the Pakistanis would be more keen on resorting to open war, rather than mere terrorism.

It should also be noted that Iran faces a somewhat more complex and...delicate geopolitical situation than Pakistan. In the latter's case, they basically only have to worry about India, so that greatly simplifies the situation for them and allows them to risk a bit more dickery than Iran would.

The Iranians on the other hand have to deal with not just one (Israel) but several nuclear powers due to the entrenched economic interests of the U.S. and other Western countries in the gulf region. A nuclear Iran would become fair game for other nuclear powers, thus will not do anything that could start chain reaction that ends with nuclear fire raining on it's own head (even though Iran couldn't actually hit say the US directly, the economically important gulf states are well within reach and that fact alone would be enough to raise the nuclear specter). Therefore, a nuclear armed Iran would probably find itself forced to effectively shut up and do nothing.

[stormthebeaches]

That article states that Obama has effectively placed an unofficial arms embargo on Israel. Nice.

[Phantasee]

It appears Bush did the same before:
U.S. BLOCKS ARMS, TECHNOLOGY TO ISRAEL
[MENL] -- The Bush administration has blocked arms and technology transfers to Israel.

Israeli and U.S. sources said the State Department has blocked the transfer of weapons and technology to the Jewish state over the last three months. The sources said the halt reflected deteriorating relations between the two countries since the end of the war in Lebanon in August 2006. "Nobody will say openly that there is a problem," a government source said. "But there is a serious problem that reflects the marginalization of Israel in U.S. strategy."

The unofficial suspension of U.S. arms deliveries began in late September, the sources said. They said the suspension halted the airlift of air-to-ground and other munitions conducted during and immediately after the Israeli war with Hizbullah. "Several weeks after the war, the U.S. supplies stopped," the source aid. "There was no real explanation."

The sources said the administration has held up a list of weapons requested by Israel in wake of the Lebanon war. They said the weapons and equipment -- including the Joint Direct Attack Munition, or JDAM -- were ment to replenish munitions and other stocks in preparation for a larger war that would include Syria in mid-2007. "The administration has not rejected any Israeli request," a U.S. official said. "Instead, the State Department and Defense Department have said that all requests must be examined."

The administration refusal to approve the Israeli requests has also hampered military cooperation between the two countries. In November, the Israel Air Force canceled plans to send delegations to the United States to examine air systems and munitions. A U.S. official said the White House was deeply disappointed by the Israeli failure to defeat Hizbullah. The official said the war undermined U.S. confidence in Israel's military and government. "The word in the White House was that Israel lost the war," the official said. "That alone led to a plummet in Israel's stock in the administration, particularly the Pentagon."

The U.S. refusals have also hampered Israeli defense programs. The sources said the State Department has prevented the transfer of data and technology, even from projects that included Israeli participation. In one case, State prevented Northrop Grumman from providing details ofits Skyguard laser weapon, which the company has sought to sell to Israel. The ban led to the suspension of Israeli negotiations to procure Skyguard, designed to intercept short-range rockets and missiles.

[lazerus]

I do not see any evidence that such a move would undoubtedly (i.e. with a 100% probability) lead to "massive human casualties". Therefore, it's a strawman.

100% point is conceded, but the presence of such weapons drastically increases the chance that they will be used by a state, or fall into the hands of terrorist/radical groups. The odds of it falling into such dangerous hands increases the more unstable the country is, and Iran's government isn't exactly the picture of stability.

Moreover, there's little if anything you can do to stop the research of the FAR more dangerous biological weapons short of invasion with massive casualties - unlike with nukes, bombing a bioweapons facility is NOT safe.

So you want to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities so that it turns to the far less safer and far more easily used things like biological and chemical weapons? Especially in the case of bioweapons, which can threaten to really FUCK UP the world?

In essence, you say that you should beat the people SLIGHTLY with clubs so that they don't get to build guns. But then they start making POISON GAS, and now stopping them is only possible by beating them severely, with a high chance of death (i.e. massive human casualties).

Is that what you propose? You realize, I hope, that a nuclear Iran is a far less dangerous game player than a biological Iran?

So, if Iran builds chemical weapons, we can't stop them because then the might change to nukes. If they build nukes, we can't stop them because they might change to bioweapons. If they build battlefield bioweapons, we can't stop them because they might try to make a super-plague to wipe out the human race.

Etc etc

Do you see why this logic is retarded? "We can't stop them from having Weapon X, because they might make something worse." By that logic, as long as they don't have the very worst weapon in all existence, we can't stop any state from doing anything.

You do realise that it is only an issue if people decide to make it an issue, and also, by that line of thinking, it's perfectly fine for the rest of the world to take away the US' nuclear arsenal for provoking and starting a war at least once.

Morally? Yes, it absolutely is okay.

Practically it's more problematic.

In fact, mind you, it was nuclear weapons that ultimately led to both sides of the Cold War to stay their hand because they know for a certainty that any war will be a nuclear one and not a conventional one. In fact reducing the prospect of massive causalties.

Quite frankly the issue with Iran is not so much Nuclear weapons, but rather the United States cannot contend with another regional power snatching its pre-eminence in the Middle East, and its pet dog Israel continues barking up the tree.

We want to take a gun away from a drunk, angry man screaming that all the Jews must die and that anyone who crosses him will regret it. Naturally, the only reason for this is that we're friends with jewish people, and don't want them feeling bad.

Or maybe because it's blatantly dangerous.

[Ma Deuce]

It appears Bush did the same before:

Yeah, temporarily withholding arms shipments from Israel is not exactly new, and is really nothing more than a minor inconvenience for them. The last time a US president seriously leaned on Israel was when Bush the Elder withheld loan guarantees in '92 (Israel was particularly vulnerable to this at the time given the large number of jewish immigrants it was busy absorbing from the former USSR). This led directly led to the collapse of Yitzhak Shamir's government and his defeat in the subsequent election. As I recall however it was politically costly for Bush, particularly since it happened in an election year.

[Simon_Jester]

The Iranians on the other hand have to deal with not just one (Israel) but several nuclear powers due to the entrenched economic interests of the U.S. and other Western countries in the gulf region. A nuclear Iran would become fair game for other nuclear powers, thus will not do anything that could start chain reaction that ends with nuclear fire raining on it's own head (even though Iran couldn't actually hit say the US directly, the economically important gulf states are well within reach and that fact alone would be enough to raise the nuclear specter). Therefore, a nuclear armed Iran would probably find itself forced to effectively shut up and do nothing.

On the other hand, it would also be vastly more secure against attacks from its neighbors. If most of Iran's screwing with the neighbors is motivated by the desire to keep those neighbors weak and unable to threaten it, then it would probably much rather have a nuclear deterrent than fund terrorist organizations. And the Iranian nukes are unlikely to be passed on to terrorists, because that would defeat both the purpose of the deterrent and grossly inflate the disadvantages of being a supporter of terrorism.

On the other hand, if it's motivated by a "these guys are righteous, let's back them up" attitude, then we have a much more serious problem.

[loomer]

100% point is conceded, but the presence of such weapons drastically increases the chance that they will be used by a state, or fall into the hands of terrorist/radical groups. The odds of it falling into such dangerous hands increases the more unstable the country is, and Iran's government isn't exactly the picture of stability.

Yes, having something increases the risk. However, that does not mean it WILL happen. Look at the rest of the nuclear club. Fucking South Africa had (and no doubt still has one squirreled away) developed nukes during its most turbulent period of history. Are we swamped with radioactive refugees from Africa? No. Are there nuclear armed terrorist groups thanks to them? No.

Hell, if you want to stop radicals getting them why even bother? There are two hundred missing Soviet nukes. You think that radicals couldn't get at those? Hell, maybe Iran already has a couple and used them to jumpstart their own research. The fact is, there are more nukes floating around loose in the wild than the Earth has countries so crying about how Iran poses a significant threat on that score is bullshit.

So, if Iran builds chemical weapons, we can't stop them because then the might change to nukes. If they build nukes, we can't stop them because they might change to bioweapons. If they build battlefield bioweapons, we can't stop them because they might try to make a super-plague to wipe out the human race.

Etc etc

Do you see why this logic is retarded? "We can't stop them from having Weapon X, because they might make something worse." By that logic, as long as they don't have the very worst weapon in all existence, we can't stop any state from doing anything.

A biologically armed Iran is far scarier than a nuclear Iran. There is no such thing as a 'battlefield bioweapon'. They do not work that quickly that you spray your enemy in a fight and all of a sudden you win that battle. You do not release the easiest agent to weaponize - Anthrax - on a battlefield. You release it on a city or troops on the move, but they will cause significant civilian deaths no matter how you do it. Nukes, with limited potential for disastrous accidents, with obvious effects precluding subterfuge in their use, are a preferable alternative by far.

[lazerus]

Yes, having something increases the risk. However, that does not mean it WILL happen. Look at the rest of the nuclear club. Fucking South Africa had (and no doubt still has one squirreled away) developed nukes during its most turbulent period of history. Are we swamped with radioactive refugees from Africa? No. Are there nuclear armed terrorist groups thanks to them? No.

Hell, if you want to stop radicals getting them why even bother? There are two hundred missing Soviet nukes. You think that radicals couldn't get at those? Hell, maybe Iran already has a couple and used them to jumpstart their own research. The fact is, there are more nukes floating around loose in the wild than the Earth has countries so crying about how Iran poses a significant threat on that score is bullshit.

Ah, so because it hasn't happened so far, there's no danger and it's perfectly safe -- countries with internal problems and ex-soviet bombs that may not even work anymore being exactly equivalent to modern nukes in the hand of a theocratic state that has vowed to destroy Israel.

Hell, by that logic, having more bioweapons around increases the chance of a biological attack -- but it's never happened before, therefore, it's totally safe! I should be able to own my very own urban anthrax deployment bomb because there's no guarantee I'll use it, so what right does anyone have to take it away from me?

A biologically armed Iran is far scarier than a nuclear Iran. There is no such thing as a 'battlefield bioweapon'. They do not work that quickly that you spray your enemy in a fight and all of a sudden you win that battle. You do not release the easiest agent to weaponize - Anthrax - on a battlefield. You release it on a city or troops on the move, but they will cause significant civilian deaths no matter how you do it. Nukes, with limited potential for disastrous accidents, with obvious effects precluding subterfuge in their use, are a preferable alternative by far.

Irrelevant, point stands.

[loomer]

Ah, so because it hasn't happened so far, there's no danger and it's perfectly safe -- countries with internal problems and ex-soviet bombs that may not even work anymore being exactly equivalent to modern nukes in the hand of a theocratic state that has vowed to destroy Israel.

Hell, by that logic, having more bioweapons around increases the chance of a biological attack -- but it's never happened before, therefore, it's totally safe! I should be able to own my very own urban anthrax deployment bomb because there's no guarantee I'll use it, so what right does anyone have to take it away from me?

Never said jack-all about rights, nor about it being totally safe. Nice try at strawmanning, though. Fact is, there is no such thing as total safety. No matter what course of action is taken, Iran WILL end up with the bomb eventually. It's simply an inevitability. I'm not saying it's good. I'm not saying it's desirable. All I'm saying is that it isn't a guaranteed certainty that an international pariah with extremist views is going to disseminate the nukes and construction techniques once they achieve armament, because this situation has already occurred without that outcome. Twice, if you count the Nork's sorry excuse for a bomb.

Further, those ex-soviet bombs are probably going to be a hell of a lot more reliable for study than some third-world shithole design like the Iranians'll start producing or the Norks have. Again, the risk increase of proliferation is just about miniscule thanks to those nukes floating around out there. There is essentially no gain to be had in this area by bombing or invading Iran, and since they WILL get the bomb sooner or later we have to weigh cost in fuel, armament, crew and lives versus time gained.

Now, honestly, do you really think Iran'd do it? That they'd press the button on Israel? Because consider this. If they did, they would become nothing more than a great big series of glowing glass fields when Israel and America retaliated. The Iranians, for all their rhetoric and propaganda, aren't stupid. Hell, their use of it is part of why they aren't. They've got the population focused on an outside enemy. Remove that enemy and remove the thing keeping the nation generally tied together, and they'd destroy themselves as well.

[lazerus]

Never said jack-all about rights, nor about it being totally safe. Nice try at strawmanning, though. Fact is, there is no such thing as total safety. No matter what course of action is taken, Iran WILL end up with the bomb eventually. It's simply an inevitability. I'm not saying it's good. I'm not saying it's desirable. All I'm saying is that it isn't a guaranteed certainty that an international pariah with extremist views is going to disseminate the nukes and construction techniques once they achieve armament, because this situation has already occurred without that outcome. Twice, if you count the Nork's sorry excuse for a bomb.

And I'm telling you that no guaranteed certainty * doesn't mean shit*. Iran having weapons increases the likelihood of that outcome, which is all the justification other nations need. If we are talking about rights and morality then killing a few dozen Iranian's to avert the non-trivial possibility of a nuclear war is perfectly acceptable. If we're talking about might making right and practicality then there's no one with the power and the will to stop the United States, so they can do it. On *what basis* are you saying it's wrong for the US to bomb Iran? The only possibility I can see is the practical one -- that it would cause diplomatic problems in the region and so is not in the US's best interest, but that is not the topic of this thread.

[The Guid]

Kane Starkiller has already pointed this out, but simply talking about how the US has had foreign policy that has, in the past and even in the present, been not entirely morally consistent (to put it lightly) is not to address the point of whether Iran should be stopped from gaining nuclear weaponry using military means. Consider - would it be morally right for a mass murderer to shoot someone who was attempting to murder someone? Yes it would. You could argue that the mass murderer is a mass murderer all you like, but it would not be right for him to stand idle whilst someone was murdered

Bull-fucking-shit. Iran's not attempting to mass murder anyone. I have a better analogy.

Consider - would it be morally right for a mass murderer (who has illegally invaded nations, and sponsored regimes that used WMDs, i.e. America) to shoot someone who was attempting to gain weaponry to defend itself (Iran) from the mass murderer (who recently illegally invaded nations, and sponsored regimes that used WMDs ON IT)? You could argue that the mass murderer (America) is a mass murderer all you like, but it would not be right for Iran to stand idle and defenseless while the mass murderer mass murdered it.

Iran is like a man who's buying a gun because the neighbor he hated (Iraq) just got murdered robbed and raped by a shit-eating fucked up serial killer bitch (America). Not to mention, previously, that shit-eating fucked up serial killer bitchface (America) supported the neighbor (Iraq) when the neighbor (Iraq) used chemical weapons on Iran.

I think that it is in keeping with the Second Amendment for Iran, and many other countries, to have the right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves from necrophiliac nations like America.

Congratulations, you completely and utterly missed the point. OK, in simple terms:

We are debating whether an action is moral. Bringing up previous actions of those involved is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. I stress this because in reading this thread I have to tire out my scrolling finger because you are constantly going on about how the USA is a the super evil empire of terror. There are two levels to this; first its ridiculous, second its, and I cannot stress this enough, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

I'd like to end by pointing out to Shroom that when he is quoting my own words back to me with a raised eyebrow he's making himself look stupid. I never said that not attacking Iran was a "moron" position. I've merely stated that its not a simple cut and dried issue.

Actually, no. It looks stupid because your points themselves are stupid, which is the whole point of using your own (stupid) words back at you.

I'd like to end by pointing out to you that when I am quoting your own words back at you to illustrate the hypocrisy of your own words - because when I substitute "America" with any other nation, somehow it becomes objectionable but when it's "America" that's doing it it's A-OK. That's hypocrisy.[/quote]

No, that's you assuming I'm something I'm not. I am not keen on a lot of US foreign policy, I just don't jump onto "everything America might ever do is bad" bandwagons, nor am I, to be clear, on "everything America does is OK" bandwagons.

I just happen to really think the Iranian regime is not one I want to have nukes. If I had it my way neither would anyone, especially not Pakistan. I am deeply uncomfortable with the Middle East becoming an area full of nuclear powers. Ideally Israel wouldn't have them either, but the fact is that they do and the US isn't even capable of disarming them.

Remember also that Iran isn't arguing your points. Its not come out and said "Yes, we are building nuclear weapons, we deserve to." They're claiming its only for power generation. Doesn't that say something?
Spoiler

You will now talk about Israel and how they don't admit it either as if that is relevant.

So.. can we PLEASE raise the level of debate to "Is this going to work?" "Will it cause more harm than good?" and other questions that are related the subject matter and not simply "ZOMG. America wants to do this but in the 1830s it did THIS BAD THING!"

I wanted to respond to the point that Iran can only be delayed in gaining nuclear weapons. I would agree with this in principle but a delay could lead to them not seeking nuclear weapons once a regime change (not from invasion) came about. It might no longer serve their interests. It may well be that another delay was needed five or ten years down the line. However there are areas of the world where nuclear weapons have been but no longer are, so its not inconceivable.

[Shroom Man 777]

Then what is the immorality of Iran gaining nuclear weapons? An Iran with nuclear weapons, like a nuclear-armed Pakistan, would mean that other nations (like America) can no longer easily and/or illegally invade or intervene in the region to cause the historically destabilizing situations characteristic with prior American intervention. This is a good thing.

Likewise, a nuclear-armed Iran would - if we can use other nuclear states, even friggin Pakistan - be dissuaded from conventional combat because now it's in the nuclear club, and would be treated as such, and because its actions as a nuclear country make it eligible for nuking also.


So what if they claim it's just for power generation? They can claim that they're using nuclear explosions for damming/damning projects, or are using nuclear explosions for the national economy, or using nukes for putting out forest fires. So?

[Aeolus]

Both those programs occured in the context of a superpower standoff.

This standoff never went anywhere. Our nukes point at the USA, USA nukes point at Russia.

Regardless, as others have pointed out the failure to act then does not make a failure to act now any more desirable.

But why U.S. allies deserve special immunity, but Iran does not?

What is this idiotic 'allowed' that you keep harping on about?

So you assume international law is bullshit? Rule of the strong? He who is stronger can have anything he wants just because he can? I thought we made laws exactly to prevent this sort of shit, but if you feel otherwise, why not...

International law is as you put it "bullshit" It's simply a bunch of gentlemen's agreements agreed upon by the major powers. It only exists so far as those same powers choose to enforce it. I would point to WW2 when both sides essentially threw the "rules" out of the window and proceeded to beat the snot out of each other.

Law implies that there is someone strong enough to enforce it. The Great Powers are great precisely because no one is strong enough to bend them to their will. The lesser powers on the other hand.....

[The Guid]

Then what is the immorality of Iran gaining nuclear weapons? An Iran with nuclear weapons, like a nuclear-armed Pakistan, would mean that other nations (like America) can no longer easily and/or illegally invade or intervene in the region to cause the historically destabilizing situations characteristic with prior American intervention.

An Iran that can't be touched for fear of nuclear reprisals may, as I have suggested, be an Iran more willing to attempt to gain further influence on Afghanistan and Iraq. An Iran bolstered by nuclear weapons may be more willing to be less clandestine in its support for Palestinian terrorist groups, anti Western terrorist groups, and now they have nuclear capability.

Remember also that Iran has many enemies in the middle east who may wish to have their own nuclear deterrent. I have mentioned Saudi Arabia, and there are other players in the region such as Egypt or Turkey who could be said to join this group. Even if they don't seek nuclear alternatives there is an unchecked escalation of military force in a region well described as a powder keg.

I appreciate that all of these things could equally be said of Pakistan. However I can not change the past. If I could, I would.

This is a good thing.

I must respectfully disagree.

Likewise, a nuclear-armed Iran would - if we can use other nuclear states, even friggin Pakistan - be dissuaded from conventional combat because now it's in the nuclear club, and would be treated as such, and because its actions as a nuclear country make it eligible for nuking also.

Sorry, I don't follow this. Genuinely, like, I'm sure its just a miscommunication.

So what if they claim it's just for power generation? They can claim that they're using nuclear explosions for damming/damning projects, or are using nuclear explosions for the national economy, or using nukes for putting out forest fires. So?

Its a lie presented to the international community and possibly to its own people. This is worrying, if not unique, on many levels.

[stormthebeaches]

If Iran got nukes then it would be likely that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iraq would also develop their own nukes, turning the middle east into a series of nuclear trip wires. Also, the close proximity all these nations have to each other, as well as their small size, means that the concept of MAD wouldn't apply.

[Ma Deuce]

On the other hand, it would also be vastly more secure against attacks from its neighbors. If most of Iran's screwing with the neighbors is motivated by the desire to keep those neighbors weak and unable to threaten it, then it would probably much rather have a nuclear deterrent than fund terrorist organizations. And the Iranian nukes are unlikely to be passed on to terrorists, because that would defeat both the purpose of the deterrent and grossly inflate the disadvantages of being a supporter of terrorism.

That depends if they view the disadvantages of having to give in to the demands of their domestic reformers to be lesser, which having nukes would essentially force them to do. This is why I hold the theory that they don't really want nukes (see my first post in the thread); they just want everyone to perpetually believe they will have them imminently.

[K. A. Pital]

We are debating whether an action is moral. Bringing up previous actions of those involved is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. I stress this because in reading this thread I have to tire out my scrolling finger because you are constantly going on about how the USA is a the super evil empire of terror. There are two levels to this; first its ridiculous, second its, and I cannot stress this enough, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

The present flows from the past. History IS relevant. Attacking a person on the street is stupid. But what if you attack a person whom you know killed your children? Hardly that clear, right?

[Simon_Jester]

Then what is the immorality of Iran gaining nuclear weapons? An Iran with nuclear weapons, like a nuclear-armed Pakistan, would mean that other nations (like America) can no longer easily and/or illegally invade or intervene in the region to cause the historically destabilizing situations characteristic with prior American intervention. This is a good thing.

Likewise, a nuclear-armed Iran would - if we can use other nuclear states, even friggin Pakistan - be dissuaded from conventional combat because now it's in the nuclear club, and would be treated as such, and because its actions as a nuclear country make it eligible for nuking also.

I'd say the biggest reasons this is a problem:

-No one can ever do anything about what's happening in Iran if the Iranian government doesn't want them to. Ever. Even if they go out and out Khmer Rouge, there's nothing to be done for it. Ever. But I can see why you wouldn't mind that price, because it does have the offsetting advantage that the US in particular can't decide randomly to do something foolish and malevolent about Iran.

-Other countries in the region will probably want their own. Saudi Arabia in particular. This could cause more problems, especially in the case of Saudi Arabia, because there's really not much between them and a theocratic state MORE ferocious than the one in Iran. The Iranian fundamentalists at least seem to care about governing and protecting their own country. If the House of Saud gets deposed or fully taken over by Sunni fanatics, they're going to be as bad as the Taliban... possibly with nuclear weapons.

And that second issue is a bit more alarming.

So yeah, there are some disadvantages to a nuclear Iran, even assuming (which I believe) that their government is sane enough not to do anything crazy or evil with a nuclear arsenal themselves.

Does that mean that anyone outside Iran has a just cause to fight a war to stop them from getting The Bomb? Well, I'm not saying that, because damned if I know.

[Shroom Man 777]

An Iran that can't be touched for fear of nuclear reprisals may, as I have suggested, be an Iran more willing to attempt to gain further influence on Afghanistan and Iraq. An Iran bolstered by nuclear weapons may be more willing to be less clandestine in its support for Palestinian terrorist groups, anti Western terrorist groups, and now they have nuclear capability.

A nuclear-armed Iran would be a target for other nuclear powers, forcing Iran to behave accordingly.

What's wrong with Iranian influence in Afghanistan and Iraq? Certainly an Iran-ruled Afghanistan would be preferable than the Taliban, since Iran makes sure shitfaces who throw acid at women end up getting acid dropped into their own eyes. Also, Iran wouldn't use WMDs against its own citizens or Kurds, so bringing Iranian Freedom to Iraq wouldn't be a bad thing. And what's wrong with supporting Palestinian freedom fighters?

Remember also that Iran has many enemies in the middle east who may wish to have their own nuclear deterrent. I have mentioned Saudi Arabia, and there are other players in the region such as Egypt or Turkey who could be said to join this group. Even if they don't seek nuclear alternatives there is an unchecked escalation of military force in a region well described as a powder keg.

All those nations are entitled to self-defense against foreign interventionism.

I appreciate that all of these things could equally be said of Pakistan. However I can not change the past. If I could, I would.

This is a good thing.

I must respectfully disagree.

Yes. It's a wonderful thing!

Likewise, a nuclear-armed Iran would - if we can use other nuclear states, even friggin Pakistan - be dissuaded from conventional combat because now it's in the nuclear club, and would be treated as such, and because its actions as a nuclear country make it eligible for nuking also.

Sorry, I don't follow this. Genuinely, like, I'm sure its just a miscommunication.

A nuclear Iran would become an eligible target for other nuclear powers. So if Iran would behave itself, since as a nuclear power the principle of MAD would apply to it as well. Like how India and Pakistan don't escalate to conventional combat, because they know if they act stupid then conventional combat will escalate to a nuclear one - and they'll both lose (well, Pakistan would get fucked, while India would laugh).

So what if they claim it's just for power generation? They can claim that they're using nuclear explosions for damming/damning projects, or are using nuclear explosions for the national economy, or using nukes for putting out forest fires. So?

Its a lie presented to the international community and possibly to its own people. This is worrying, if not unique, on many levels.

[/quote]

It's not a lie. Iran is developing nuclear capability for power generation. Of course, gaining the ability to build weapons is an unavoidable side-effect. It's also a very useful side-effect when aggressive and interventionist foreign powers - nuclear powers, at that - are waging wars in the two nearest countries right next to you.

Turns out that if a smaller nation is threatened by the military actions of a much larger and much more powerful and rogue nation armed with nuclear weapons, that smaller nation will want to seek some kind of equalizer. Who knew?

Other countries in the region will probably want their own. Saudi Arabia in particular. This could cause more problems, especially in the case of Saudi Arabia, because there's really not much between them and a theocratic state MORE ferocious than the one in Iran. The Iranian fundamentalists at least seem to care about governing and protecting their own country. If the House of Saud gets deposed or fully taken over by Sunni fanatics, they're going to be as bad as the Taliban... possibly with nuclear weapons.

Then Iran can lead the world in imposing sanctions against the unstable Saudi Arabian regime from obtaining dangerous and regionally destabilizing WMDs that will threaten the safety and security of Iran and other nearby nations. Certainly Iran can build a coalition of willing nations to help them in this aim.

OR, America could just get the fuck out of the Middle East - thus alleviating one of the reasons why Iran would want nuclear-weapons.

[Sarevok]

I agree. Iranians are a beacon of civilization for thousands of years. They should invade Iraq and make the women there cover their heads. They should also ban gmail, monitor personal communications and censor the fuck out of anything the head honchos dont like. Also Iranians with military mightier than USA would be able neutralize any Iraqi resistance faster. So it does not matter Iraq will explode again after their mortal enemies invade them. It does not matter who kills people as long as it is not an American.

I have known people who lived and saw shit that happens when regimes ridiculas laws are flounted. Fuck Iran.

[K. A. Pital]

I agree. Iranians are a beacon of civilization for thousands of years. They should invade Iraq and make the women there cover their heads. They should also ban gmail, monitor personal communications and censor the fuck out of anything the head honchos dont like. Also Iranians with military mightier than USA would be able neutralize any Iraqi resistance faster. So it does not matter Iraq will explode again after their mortal enemies invade them. It does not matter who kills people as long as it is not an American.

I have known people who lived and saw shit that happens when regimes ridiculas laws are flounted. Fuck Iran.

So if Iranians are so bad at personal communications use, how come they have the highest percentage of internet users in their population, after Israel, among all nations of the Middle East?

Let's bomb Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and all other Middle East nations for not giving their people internet access, shall we.